adr_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given no annotations, the description transparently states the tool returns full content, status, supersedes chain, and originated flow. It does not disclose missing details like authentication, but as a read-only operation, the disclosure is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words. It efficiently conveys purpose, return data, and a usage hint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and when to use it. No additional information is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with only the 'number' parameter having a description. The description reinforces that the tool retrieves by number but does not explain the optional 'projectId' parameter, leaving a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves a single ADR by its number, listing specific return fields (full content, status, supersedes chain, originated flow). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like adr_list, adr_accept, and adr_update_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to pull the full rationale of a specific decision before planning changes.' While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.